Fundamentally Broken US Government

October 31, 2020

Vote counting for the 2020 election begins in a few days. But this article isn't about that. There's little use in spending time and energy in constant partisan fighting when our government seems incapable of addressing any of the issues we face in the first place. When you have a leaky roof and you see a storm on the horizon, you don’t fill the house with more and more buckets to deal with the water that will be coming in. You fix the roof.

Setting aside all of the partisan issues of the day, I believe there are three fundamental, structural, non-partisan problems with the Constitution. These core problems are ultimately responsible for our governmental dysfunction and inability to make progress solving the real problems we face. Fixing the core problems should be the priority of reformers — not focusing on issues stemming from them, nor even on other areas our Constitution could be amended.

The Core Issues

In order of most critical to less critical, the following are in my opinion the three core issues with the federal government.

The US Senate disproportionately represents voters in less populous, predominately white states.¹
Our plurality (or “first past the post”) voting system perpetuates our two-party system.^{6, 7, 8}
The Electoral College takes away the voting power of millions and has not functioned as intended.⁹

1. The US Senate

The US Senate disproportionately represents voters in less populous, predominately white states.¹ As of mid-2019:

The eight least populous states have an estimated 6,682,917² residents.
The eight most populous states have an estimated 157,219,735² residents.

Therefore a resident of the eight smallest states has on average more than 23½ times the representation in the Senate as a resident of the eight largest states. This becomes an even more egregious 68 times disparity when directly comparing Wyoming residents to those of California.

Because the Senate wields so much power in the federal government, voters in Wyoming shouldn't be able to disproportionately affect the lives of voters in California.

And while this is already broken and undemocratic it's only going to get worse³.

All states have two senators because smaller states had to be appeased in order to adopt the Constitution^{4, 5}. This of course no longer has any bearing on the current situation: we can amend the existing Constitution without all 50 states having to come to unanimous agreement.

If there ever was sufficient political will among the states to fix the Senate via an amendment, Article V of the Constitution would first have to be amended. That article presently enforces that "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."⁶

The ratification of an amendment that would change the number and allocation of senators can therefore proceed regardless of the wishes of the 12 least-populous states. However, the least-populous of the largest 38 states (as of 2019 e.g. West Virginia, Nebraska, and New Mexico) would be reduced to one senator according to one proposal referenced in the article in The Atlantic.⁴ Those states would have to be somewhat appeased in any negotiation along these lines, perhaps, for example, with an exception that grants them an additional senator for 50 years.

2. The plurality voting system

Our plurality (or “first past the post”) voting system perpetuates our two-party system.^{7, 8, 9}

Nationwide instant-runoff ranked choice voting must be made mandatory in all elections. The plurality voting system necessitates the two-party system that paralyzes our government and drives us to animosity and taking unrealistic, extreme positions on nearly every issue.

Where multiple seats are elected for a given district, such as for the Senate and House of Representatives, proportional representation should be used. This would help give better representation to all voters in each district, and help free us from the dominance of our two political parties.¹⁰

3. The Electoral College

The Electoral College was intended to be an educated, benevolent, guiding force that could, if necessary, go against the popular vote in order to prevent an unqualified, or perhaps corrupt, dangerous candidate from winning the presidency and "steering the country astray."¹¹

The 2016 election offers all the argument needed for the abolition of the Electoral College. Not only did the Electoral College go against the popular vote, where the difference was millions of votes, but it carried out the opposite of its intended function by going against the popular vote to elect an unfit, corrupt, criminal demagogue to the presidency.

There isn't clear evidence for the Electoral College contributing to voter apathy, but in my opinion many would-be voters choose to stay home because they know their vote for President, which goes against the majority in their state, will effectively be thrown out. Of course, every other down-ballot seat is voted on directly, but they still somewhat paradoxically choose to not vote because, to them, the office of the President is by far and away the most important to them.

Fundamentally Broken US Government

The Core Issues

1. The US Senate

2. The plurality voting system

3. The Electoral College

References